Canon EOS 5D Mark III Released

[nighstar]

well, keep in mind that those photos at Imaging Resource were taken with a pre-production model. it's impossible to know what stage of production the camera and its firmware were in. that said, even if Chris' observation turns out to be true, i'm still happy with my preorder. 🙂

i cant wait to see/take real world user photos with the final camera. screw staged studio shots. 🙂

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

well, keep in mind that those photos at Imaging Resource were taken with a pre-production model. it's impossible to know what stage of production the camera and its firmware were in. that said, even if Chris' observation turns out to be true, i'm still happy with my preorder. 🙂

i cant wait to see/take real world user photos with the final camera. screw staged studio shots. 🙂

I don't know what them being studio shots has to do with it. I do some studio work for my clients, so that is a valid comparison to me. I've never really seen a production model in online tests do much better than the preproduction ones.

Still, its a good camera. If I didn't have a 5DmkII, and the mkII was all sold out, I'd buy the MkIII. I'm just happy I saved a ton of money by buying the older one 🙂 I can buy more lenses with the $$$ I saved. Like I said, if you do action photography, the mkIII is worth the extra money. Just isn't for me.

 

[nighstar]

I don't know what them being studio shots has to do with it. I do some studio work for my clients, so that is a valid comparison to me.

just personal preference i guess, but i would much rather see samples that are taken in settings/lighting that i can relate to. as someone who is into nature/animal/landscape photography, pictures of a bunch of cloth swatches, glass bottles and whatnot that are well lit and against a white background just doesn't do it for me.


anyway, time for some user photos. someone has gotten their Mark III already and posted ISO and HDR sample photos on Flickr:

ISO samples
HDR samples

 

[bwcolor]

Pretty useless ISO samples when so greatly downsized.

 

[nighstar]

Pretty useless ISO samples when so greatly downsized.

true.

how about this? 23 full size JPEGs and downloadable RAWs

 

[gavinlg]

true.

how about this? 23 full size JPEGs and downloadable RAWs

Hmmm..

I'm not sure how impressed I am with that. To be honest, it doesn't seem that much different to my 5dI, which in turn isn't that different to the 5dII. I know the AF and build are the biggest features on this camera, but something about the way canons sensor technology is(n't) progressing in the last 6 years is bugging me..

Download some of these jpegs and RAWs from the nikon d800/e from here:
http://www.fotopolis.pl/index.php?n=14580&p=0 and perhaps you may see the same thing that I am seeing. That d800 is getting huuuge resolution and tonal separation from it's 38mp sensor. It seems to have very similar or very slightly more noise, but also seems to hold its highlights quite a bit better... I tried recovering some blown highlights on the 5d RAWs and there is very little headroom in them... When pushing the files they seem to get messy pretty quickly too compared to the d800 files. The d800 files seem to be cleaner with all noise reduction turned off at low iso...

Additionally the d800 jpegs are significantly nicer than canons pastel looking jpegs, though this could be in-camera noise reduction settings at work.

I got to admit though, the d800 IQ wise is looking so damn good right now...

 

[bobbyrab]

Just a quick update on my impressions so far. Firstly I should point out I make my living photographing weddings where 98% of my shots are real events in real time, ie not staged, so AF accuracy, high iso capability and quick access to settings, which are all big improvements on this camera, are worth the upgrade to me alone.

However I though I might just give a quick appraisal of the IQ difference over the Mark II. To my eye the files look to have much better pop to them, so for example they look to be more contrasty while keeping more of the highlights from blowing or the shadows blocking up, probably what most would refer to as better dynamic range. Both the metering and the WB seem more accurate and stable.

I'm posting a photo of my daughter taken with the markIII, then as quickly as I could change the lens over the markII, as I said the markIII had more 3d pop straight away so I tried in photoshop to match the two files, so I adjusted both the contrast and the colour to match [the wb picker in canon's own software is not that easy to control, eye dropper with no preview], and so as not to embarrass my daughter further I cloned out a few blemishes on both files.

My conclusion is that every aspect of the camera has been improved upon, especially the functionality of the camera, but the IQ of the files is not so improved to perhaps justify the cost of the new camera especially, if the high iso improvement is not important to you. For me, well I'm a happy camper, I don't love digital but it's where we are and this will do me for a while.


mark-3 by fatbobbyrab, on Flickr


mark-2 by fatbobbyrab, on Flickr


mar3onleft by fatbobbyrab, on Flickr

 

[bobbyrab]

Just to clarify, when i applied the same WB to both files they produced different colours, so I tried to match the markII file to the markIII in both colour and contrast, I could probably get them closer if I'd spent more time, but then that's the point, I don't want to be spending too much time on the computer, let the camera do the work.

 

[nighstar]

thanks, bobbyrab. 🙂 looking forward to getting my Mark III on Friday. 😀

just want to update anyone who was interested about 3rd party focusing screens and Canon's warranty. note that Canon's warranties aren't always the same from region to region so you may want to check with your region's, but the response that i got from the Canon Australia rep was very iffy. he said that installing a 3rd party screen might void the warranty, but then again it might not. it depends on what fails and whether or not they feel your screen instillation had anything to do with it.

i see myself installing a screen as soon as i can get the money for one and one becomes available.

 

[nighstar]

well, the day has finally come. the Mark III has be released pretty much everywhere, it seems, so reviews should start showing up everywhere soon (not that i care 🙄 ). so far there is a new field test review by Engadget who spent two weeks with a pre-production model.

on a kind of related note, check out this interesting (to me) article: 93 Year-Old Lens Attached to a 5D

i picked up my Mark III yesterday (and a new Think Tank bag, woohoo!), but i am suddenly swamped with work and won't be able to touch it for the next two days. :bang:

 

[nighstar]

i've been using the Mark III for a couple of days now and what can i say? i'm impressed. coming from the E-P2 where ISO400 is the highest i would use for color, the Mark III's high ISO performance is extremely liberating!! and i find the Mark III's noise much more pleasing, even at ridiculously high ISOs. i have even found myself opting for higher ISOs than necessary just to get noise/grain for b&w, i like it so much.

using the camera has been a joy. i really love the viewfinder and am getting used to the controls. there are way more buttons and dials on this camera than i am used to, but that's a plus rather than a negative since it means hardly any diving into menus.

about the viewfinder, i cant compare it to the Mark II's standard screen or the Eg-S, but so far I have found it to be fine manually focusing my Zuiko 55mm 1.2 wide open and stopped down a bit (depending on the lighting). the viewfinder is wonderfully bright (esp. at 1.2) and DOF is easy to see. i can see it being harder to focus ultra-wides where the subject is not close, but that's a problem for just about any viewfinder/screen.

there is one thing that MUST be noted for those who want to use old lenses via adapters with AF chips. while these adapters have worked fine on the Mark II, not all of them will work on the Mark III. when I put my Zuiko 55mm via AF adapter (which I have used on my 350D and is known to work on the Mark II) the Mark III refused to do anything. it displayed a message about the lens needing a firmware update and wouldn't turn on at all beyond that. i was on a train at the time & quickly googled to see if anyone else had had this problem and found one person had. i pried the AF chip off with a pen and voilà! it worked. i will miss the AF confirmation, especially with the Mark III's awesome 61points, but oh well.

the biggest (and only) let down that i have at the moment is the lack of software support and the fact that Canon's own software, DPP, cant even seem to process the Mark III's RAWs right. if i export to 16bit TIFF it seems ok, but that results in massive files. sigh. i cant wait until postprocessing the files becomes easier.

anyway, here are a couple of photos i've taken. please note that they are NOT representative of what this camera can do. i am not a pro and am still learning this camera and photography. the photos have been edited to my own taste and EXIF + larger versions can be found on Flickr. RAWs available upon request.


half of Me by nighstar, on Flickr


golden ouchies by nighstar, on Flickr


CBD tones by nighstar, on Flickr

 

[Lancer]

Looks, good keep posting files and your thoughts. I have my M8 for sale on here now. The Mark III is on my to buy list. I have a major couple of year project to start as soon as I can get ahold of one of these bad boys. Would like to see some 100% cropped files in color and BW at varies ISO's if possible. Thanks, Lancer

 

[mrisney]

Just got mine today. The amount of buttons and menus is a bit much for me. I moved up from a M43 Panasonic GH1. I understood that camera, this one will take some time to be able to master. Obligatory cat photo, hah, my first picture, nothing to brag about other than I shot it with available light at 8:00 at night in the kitchen. I will never sell my Mamiya 6 though.

 

[MCTuomey]

Just to clarify, when i applied the same WB to both files they produced different colours, so I tried to match the markII file to the markIII in both colour and contrast, I could probably get them closer if I'd spent more time, but then that's the point, I don't want to be spending too much time on the computer, let the camera do the work.

it might be interesting to use the eyedropper/custom WB on the whites of your daughter's eye for each pic, then see the result.